It strikes me that Nikon has once again managed a "just in time" response that has stemmed the outflow of professionals from a Nikon mount.
The first time this happened was in 2007, with the introduction of the D3. In the two or three years prior to that, I was fielding a massive number of inquiries from Nikon-weilding pros about "when will Nikon go full frame like Canon?" I won't name names, but at least two prominent and well-known Nikon users at the time stayed Nikon users because I managed to convince them that Nikon would soon have a response. (Disclaimer: one eventually did move on, but that was almost six years later, and with incentive from another maker.)
At the professional photographer level, there's a constant need to be at the very top of the game. Your imagery has to be better than everyone else's, otherwise you simply can't make a living doing it. Digital already caused a massive problem due to increased competition from amateurs, as the ability of those amateurs to see what mistakes they were making in the field and correcting them upped their game considerably. As I've noted several times before, there are so many more amateurs with good gear out there at any given time that it's more likely that they capture a wolf/bear fight than a pro does. The pro can only be in one place at a time, and it's often not the right place for those once-in-a-lifetime images. Meanwhile, amateurs are everywhere, and one of them will almost always happen to be at that wolf/bear fight.
To some degree, the (very expensive) D3x was the next camera that quelled a few pros from switching. That's because megapixel count became a thing, too. If your camera could only generate 14" prints at 300 dpi (~12mp) and someone else's could generate a just-as-good-looking 20" print (~24mp), you were at a disadvantage (at least prior to when those AI "make more pixels" algorithms came along; but maybe even then, too).
Well, today, the Z9 can be said to have been the camera that staunched the latest round of Nikon pros from switching. The Internet had certainly whipped up the notion that "Sony mirrorless cameras focus better," though the reality of that statement had a lot of footnotes, caveats, and nuances and wasn't accurate. Even some Nikon DSLR pros seemed to slowly come around to thinking that Sony had some advantage (and were mostly wrong; the D6, used correctly, is uncanny in focus, though only over the area within the one-third points).
I've been relatively surprised by the number of Nikon pros I talk to and work with that all recently decided to opt for a Z9 to see what all the excitement was about and maybe stop them from thinking about Sony. And it did. Nikon has once again managed to pull off a "just in time" technology change that keeps them in the game.
It may surprise you to learn that I'm not as convinced about the Z9's prowess in focus performance as the general hoopla suggests. Yes, it's darned good, and for someone who didn't take the time to learn the older Nikon focus systems, the Z9 almost like magic improves their focus consistency and hit rate. But after now using the Z9 for over two months and testing it in a wide range of settings, I'm not as convinced that the Z9 is some sort of miracle focusing solution that's always right on its own.
I'll have far more to say about this when I eventually post my review and publish my Complete Guide to the Nikon Z9, but Nikon went a bit too far in on the all-automatic bit. Yes, it works, and is arguably one of the two or three best all-automatic focus capabilities you'll find in a camera (the Canon R3 and Sony A1 would be the others that rise to this level; the Canon R5/R6 and some other Sony models would be in a not-too-distant position behind). However, it's in the footnotes, caveats, and nuances that Nikon needs to work harder. I can't drive the Z9 exactly the way I'd like to, because there's a missing button. The alternative solution to the missing button isn't perfect. Moreover, Nikon still has that slight lag-to-initial focus that Canon certainly doesn't have (Sony is in between).
Anal pros who've used multiple systems notice such things. Some of you might not, possibly because you're achieving better results than you used to, plus you haven't compared your camera directly to a competitor.
Still, my primary point in this article is this: the Z9 stopped the "Nikon is out of the game" thoughts that were going through a heck of a lot of professional photographers' minds. They most certainly are in the game with the Z9, so much so that I'm seeing a huge dump of Nikon DSLR for mirrorless among that crowd. So, warts and all, the Z9 did its job.
As I've noted on the dslrbodies.com site lately, Nikon still has two large groups of prosumer photographers that are unconvinced: the D500 and D850 users. The D500 is to this day the best APS-C (DX) camera you can buy, and by a fairly wide margin. The D850 is still one of the best three or four all-around cameras you can buy, and the least expensive of that bunch, as well.
So Nikon still has work to do. The Z9 kept the pros in Nikon gear, but there's still risk at the prosumer level. Thus, I'm waiting to see what "just in time" solution Nikon will come up with next in the Z System.
_____________________________
I've long pointed out that it pays to just stay patient and not pursue every last upgrade and change that's possible. Don't be a Switcher, and definitely don't be a Constant Switcher. Nikon has over time proven that suggestion to be wise time and time again, though there are obvious time gaps between one Nikon "big thing" and another Nikon "big thing." The missing D400 was one big miss, the lateness to quality mirrorless was another.
But let's turn that around a moment and consider it from Nikon's viewpoint: has the recent slow-but-we'll-catch-up pace been good for Nikon? No. Nikon was first mover into DSLR, which dramatically changed their market share, and they were mostly a fast mover up through the peak of DSLR in 2011, which was good for retaining market share. Those things kept Nikon #2 in the interchangeable lens camera (ILC) market with a typical 30-35% chunk of the market. However, since 2011, not so good, and now Nikon finds themselves a distant #3 to Sony, which did churn models impressively fast during that period.
The problem for Nikon, I believe, is that by not staying truly aggressive in the second decade of digital ILC, they lost customers that they won't get back. They're now generally in the 10-15% market share level, and the market itself today is far, far smaller. What happened is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. By scaling back Nikon ends up scaled back. Meanwhile, Canon is still pursuing market share. They are still at around 50% of the ILC purchases, and they're still profitable, meaning that it's possible to pursue both goals simultaneously. Nikon put profit ahead of share, and achieved that, but that's a lower goal and thus a lower achievement (one thing instead of two).
So my last my last bolded line in the main article is indeed an important one. I can think of four different model levels at which Nikon's strength is slipping and loyal users are complaining. Which one(s) will Nikon shore up and when?
